Menu
▾
▴
linuxconsole-dev
|
From: Brad H. <bh...@bi...> - 2002-07-07 07:01:37
Attachments:
iforce-compile.patch
|
The iforce code in 2.5.25 won't compile unless both USB and RS232 versions are built into the kernel. This patch fixes the two issues: 1. IFORCE_232 and IFORCE_USB are used in iforce-packet.c without testing if they exist. 2. IFORCE_232 needs to be defined when the Config.in option is set as a module or when built into the kernel. Same for IFORCE_USB. Brad -- http://conf.linux.org.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Australia. Birds in Black. |
|
From: Johann D. <jo...@do...> - 2002-07-07 09:15:30
|
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
> The iforce code in 2.5.25 won't compile unless both USB and RS232 versions are
> built into the kernel.
Indeed. A user reported that bug this week, and I fixed it in the version
for 2.4.18. I have yet to include the fix in linuxconsole CVS.
>
> This patch fixes the two issues:
> 1. IFORCE_232 and IFORCE_USB are used in iforce-packet.c without testing if
> they exist.
Those symbols were both used as "enums" for bus types and as configuration
options. Now IFORCE_{232,USB} is used for the bus type only, and
CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_{232,USB}.
> 2. IFORCE_232 needs to be defined when the Config.in option is set as a module
> or when built into the kernel. Same for IFORCE_USB.
The Config.in option can only be set to "y" or "n". iforce.o is a
multi-part driver, and the choice for RS232 in Config.in just tells if
iforce-serio.o should be included in iforce.o. Another option decides
whether iforce.o should be a module or not.
>
> Brad
>
>
--
Johann Deneux
|
|
From: Brad H. <bh...@bi...> - 2002-07-07 09:20:06
|
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:15, Johann Deneux wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
> > The iforce code in 2.5.25 won't compile unless both USB and RS232
> > versions are built into the kernel.
>
> Indeed. A user reported that bug this week, and I fixed it in the version
> for 2.4.18. I have yet to include the fix in linuxconsole CVS.
Can you send to Linus for 2.5.25?
> > This patch fixes the two issues:
> > 1. IFORCE_232 and IFORCE_USB are used in iforce-packet.c without testing
> > if they exist.
>
> Those symbols were both used as "enums" for bus types and as configuration
> options. Now IFORCE_{232,USB} is used for the bus type only, and
> CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_{232,USB}.
This sentence looks incomplete - I'm not following it.
> > 2. IFORCE_232 needs to be defined when the Config.in option is set as a
> > module or when built into the kernel. Same for IFORCE_USB.
>
> The Config.in option can only be set to "y" or "n". iforce.o is a
> multi-part driver, and the choice for RS232 in Config.in just tells if
> iforce-serio.o should be included in iforce.o. Another option decides
> whether iforce.o should be a module or not.
That is _not_ how the Config.in looks in 2.5.25.
dep_tristate ' I-Force USB joysticks and wheels' CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_USB
$CONFIG_INPUT $CONFIG_INPUT_JOYSTICK $CONFIG_USB
dep_tristate ' I-Force Serial joysticks and wheels'
CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_232 $CONFIG_INPUT $CONFIG_INPUT_JOYSTICK $CONFIG_SERIO
Brad
BTW: Your email address is bouncing me, again.
--
http://conf.linux.org.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Australia. Birds in Black.
|
|
From: Johann D. <joh...@la...> - 2002-07-07 10:03:35
|
Brad Hards wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:15, Johann Deneux wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
>>
>>>The iforce code in 2.5.25 won't compile unless both USB and RS232
>>>versions are built into the kernel.
>>>
>>Indeed. A user reported that bug this week, and I fixed it in the version
>>for 2.4.18. I have yet to include the fix in linuxconsole CVS.
>>
> Can you send to Linus for 2.5.25?
>
Ok, I will.
>
>>>This patch fixes the two issues:
>>>1. IFORCE_232 and IFORCE_USB are used in iforce-packet.c without testing
>>>if they exist.
>>>
>>Those symbols were both used as "enums" for bus types and as configuration
>>options. Now IFORCE_{232,USB} is used for the bus type only, and
>>CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_{232,USB}.
>>
> This sentence looks incomplete - I'm not following it.
>
It is indeed incomplete. The missing part is "for
configuration-dependent code".
>
>>>2. IFORCE_232 needs to be defined when the Config.in option is set as a
>>>module or when built into the kernel. Same for IFORCE_USB.
>>>
>>The Config.in option can only be set to "y" or "n". iforce.o is a
>>multi-part driver, and the choice for RS232 in Config.in just tells if
>>iforce-serio.o should be included in iforce.o. Another option decides
>>whether iforce.o should be a module or not.
>>
> That is _not_ how the Config.in looks in 2.5.25.
>
Indeed. I obviously forgot to update the CVS. Working on it.
> dep_tristate ' I-Force USB joysticks and wheels' CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_USB
> $CONFIG_INPUT $CONFIG_INPUT_JOYSTICK $CONFIG_USB
> dep_tristate ' I-Force Serial joysticks and wheels'
> CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_232 $CONFIG_INPUT $CONFIG_INPUT_JOYSTICK $CONFIG_SERIO
>
> Brad
>
> BTW: Your email address is bouncing me, again.
>
Again ??? Well you can use joh...@it... (this address does not
have the somewhat strict spam filter). I will tell my sysadmins anyway.
>
--
Johann Deneux
|
|
From: Johann D. <joh...@la...> - 2002-07-07 10:29:40
|
Johann Deneux wrote:
> Brad Hards wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:15, Johann Deneux wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
>>>
>>>> The iforce code in 2.5.25 won't compile unless both USB and RS232
>>>> versions are built into the kernel.
>>>>
>>> Indeed. A user reported that bug this week, and I fixed it in the
>>> version
>>> for 2.4.18. I have yet to include the fix in linuxconsole CVS.
>>>
>> Can you send to Linus for 2.5.25?
>>
>
> Ok, I will.
>
>>
>>>> This patch fixes the two issues:
>>>> 1. IFORCE_232 and IFORCE_USB are used in iforce-packet.c without
>>>> testing
>>>> if they exist.
>>>>
>>> Those symbols were both used as "enums" for bus types and as
>>> configuration
>>> options. Now IFORCE_{232,USB} is used for the bus type only, and
>>> CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_{232,USB}.
>>>
>> This sentence looks incomplete - I'm not following it.
>
>
> It is indeed incomplete. The missing part is "for
> configuration-dependent code".
>
>>
>>>> 2. IFORCE_232 needs to be defined when the Config.in option is set as a
>>>> module or when built into the kernel. Same for IFORCE_USB.
>>>>
>>> The Config.in option can only be set to "y" or "n". iforce.o is a
>>> multi-part driver, and the choice for RS232 in Config.in just tells if
>>> iforce-serio.o should be included in iforce.o. Another option decides
>>> whether iforce.o should be a module or not.
>>>
>> That is _not_ how the Config.in looks in 2.5.25.
>>
>
> Indeed. I obviously forgot to update the CVS. Working on it.
>
No, I did not. drivers/input/joystick/Config.in differs in 2.5.25 and
linuxconsole CVS. These lines should be replaced by
include iforce/config.in
Is that intentional ?
>> dep_tristate ' I-Force USB joysticks and wheels'
>> CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_USB $CONFIG_INPUT $CONFIG_INPUT_JOYSTICK
>> $CONFIG_USB
>> dep_tristate ' I-Force Serial joysticks and wheels'
>> CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_232 $CONFIG_INPUT $CONFIG_INPUT_JOYSTICK
>> $CONFIG_SERIO
>>
>> Brad
>>
--
Johann Deneux
|
|
From: Brad H. <bh...@bi...> - 2002-07-07 11:35:21
|
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:10, Johann Deneux wrote:
> >>Those symbols were both used as "enums" for bus types and as
> >> configuration options. Now IFORCE_{232,USB} is used for the bus type
> >> only, and CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_{232,USB}.
> >
> > This sentence looks incomplete - I'm not following it.
>
> It is indeed incomplete. The missing part is "for
> configuration-dependent code".
So you used a construct like:
case IFORCE_USB:
#ifdef CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_USB
iforce->cr.bRequest = packet[0];
<random snippage>
#else
printk(KERN_ERR "iforce_get_id_packet: iforce->bus = USB!\n");
#endif
break;
--
http://conf.linux.org.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Australia. Birds in Black.
|
|
From: Johann D. <joh...@la...> - 2002-07-07 18:01:34
|
Brad Hards wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:10, Johann Deneux wrote:
>
>>>>Those symbols were both used as "enums" for bus types and as
>>>>configuration options. Now IFORCE_{232,USB} is used for the bus type
>>>>only, and CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_{232,USB}.
>>>>
>>>This sentence looks incomplete - I'm not following it.
>>>
>>It is indeed incomplete. The missing part is "for
>>configuration-dependent code".
>>
> So you used a construct like:
>
> case IFORCE_USB:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_JOYSTICK_IFORCE_USB
> iforce->cr.bRequest = packet[0];
> <random snippage>
> #else
> printk(KERN_ERR "iforce_get_id_packet: iforce->bus = USB!\n");
> #endif
> break;
>
>
>
Yep
--
Johann
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X